Distinguishing input controls from ouput controls in Atlantic Canada's fisheries: explaining the decline and collapse of Newfoundland's Atlantic cod stocks

Abstract

The lobster and groundfish fisheries of Atlantic Canada have been managed in very different ways. The Atlantic lobster fishery has been managed by input controls in which regulations have been developed by a posteriori deductive argument to control the intensity of the gear used to catch lobsters. By contrast the Atlantic groundfish fisheries have been managed by output controls involving the a priori inductive arguments of stock assessment in which limits are put on the amount of groundfish coming out of a fishery. Karl Popper excludes induction from his theory of method since induction leads to logical inconsistencies such as a 'scientific' ethics (i.e. the notion that science can on its own tell us what should be done), a fisheries example of which is the use of reference points and harvest guidelines in an attempt to guide the normative use of data. It is mt thesis that the prejudicial nature of a fish stock assessment with its embedded monism of 'scientific' ethics is to be held responsible for the overfishing and collapse of Atlantic groundfish fisheries including Newfoundland's Atlantic cod stocks. If Atlantic Canada's groundfish fisheries are to be managed by sound and rational decisions, they will have to join the Atlantic lobster fishery as a well regulated institution capable of controlling the levels of effort used to catch fish.